Intel unveils Silvermont processors in the hope of finally making a dent in mobile

Intel has dominated the desktop processor market for quite a long time now, but it hasn't been able to really crack the mobile market. Instead, the mobile market has been dominated by Qualcomm, Samsung, and NVIDIA, all of whom license ARM architecture to make their chips. Today, Intel unveiled its new line of Silvermont processors, which it hopes will help the company finally make some headway in the mobile market.

As you might expect when it comes to mobile processors, Intel is promising that the Silvermont line will offer more power in a more power-efficient package. Specifically, Intel says that the 22nm architecture chips will be about 3 times faster than current generation Atom processors while using about 5 times less power.

The chips also offer a new "out-of-order execution engine" which promises to speed up single-thread performance, as well as "a new multi-core and system fabric architecture scalable up to eight cores and enabling greater performance for higher bandwidth, lower latency and more efficient out-of-order support for a more balanced and responsive system."

The first of the Silvermont processors expected to hit the market will be the "Bay Trail" chips, which are set to be in tablets this holiday season, and it could also be seen in laptops and desktops.

Now, can you imagine the score of the 2Ghz version with DDR3 memory..over 4000!
And then, up that by 30% per clock for the ARM A50 core, and up the clock speed to 3Ghz..yeah. I hope you start to get the idea

Qualcomm is still leaps and bounds ahead of Intel. No way, they're gonna give up their leadership in the market so easily. The Snapdragon processors are very much in demand and doing extremely well, as they're used in the S4, HTC One and many of the new mobile devices to be released later this year will be using the Snapdragon 800. No word of any flagship devices featuring Intel's babies. I think Intel (much like Microsoft) has failed to enter the mobile industry with enough aggressiveness and too late to offer proper contest against giants like Qualcomm.

Intel is a very competetive company, arm lost to intel in tablets, now Its smartphones turn. If they ever felt threatened they have technology to do things like stack 2 I7s together to double performance or switch to multiple in core cpus.

Intel has reconized their gpus sucked, gt3e being featured in upcoming tablets/laptops is as power as a desktop gt 640.

Oh I wouldn't be so sure about that.
You're way over simplifying it.
The Haswell's i7(low power version) TDP will be around 15W..that is still too high for a real tablet.
So you'll still be getting a heavy, thick, expensive product that doesn't really compete with iPad and Android tablets.
Besides, with about 20% better performance compared to Ivy Bridge and about 40% lower power consumption, I'd say the best Intel will be able to put in a light tablet will be either a core i3 variety with the CPU punch of a, say, current MacBook Air(but with weaker, heavily restricted GPU..because Intel GPUs are still way over the ultra low power limit)..either a quad core 2Ghz Silvermont Atom, that could actually be even more capable chip, but with an even weaker GPU.

On the other side, a few months later you'll get to see the Cortex A 50 entering the market.
A design that can run at over 3Ghz in a

Now if Intel is very strong in the highly competitive processors War. but be warned now in charge of sales is undoubtedly Qualcommm. But of course Intel will give mcuh to talk. No doubt about it there.

So much Intel fanboys here.. how sad.
Do you realize what a corporate monopoly is?

And how much of exact opposite ARM is to that?

You should love ARM for all the contribution it gave to the mobile revolution.
They actually made it all possible!
And I'm sure they will continue to rule the low power market.
The 64bit A57/A53(the most computing power per watt ever in a chip) system done in a 14nm process will be amazing.
The key advantage against Intel will be in price and ease of implementation.

I hoped for a comment like this.
ARM isn't a corporate monster.. it's a small, open chip design licensee.
It allows for customers to do whatever they want with the design.
That's no monopoly, but openness.
And the license fee is truly miniscule.
Its a COMPLETELY different thing than Intel was doing.

"Intel and Microsoft monopolised the PC market and decided what consumers would get. Once you define the standards, e.g. homogeneous x86 architecture, and once the market accepts that as the standard, you can almost charge what you like and the consumer gets what is given to them. That is how Intel became a hugely profitable and seemingly dominant company with a monster mark up on each chip sold. Paying hundreds of dollars just for a hot CPU was commonplace. That time is disappearing, CPUs are on a path to being a commodity designed to a new heterogeneous standard."

Now you're just BS me because you dont have anything smart to say left.

Do some homework.
Snapdragon, Swift(Apple), Huawei's "
KV" series of chips are all ARM based..but their design is so heavily tweaked and customized that they aren't an ARM licensed chips anymore.
Look it up!
ARM doesn't get a cent from Apple, Qualcomm, Huawei etc.
While EVERY x86 chip has a hefty Intel license tag on it.

There's just no comparison.. ARM is a small, open design creator with ridiculously small profits considering the market impact they have.

Getting the picture finally?
Just because 99% of ultra low power chips out there are ARM based, that doesn't mean monopoly.
It just means the ORIGIN OF THE DESIGN"

Things aren't as simple as you quote here.

If you come with this logic, I will ask a question to you with same logic..

01) IE market share is lower than that of chrome, but Google filed a complain to EU about not letting them to create a browser for WinRT. (Filed under monopoly)
Why did they filed the complain as they have more marketshare than IE?

02) Google filed and tipped anti-competitive complain to EU about IE being the default browser on Windows. Despite chrome being the most popular and most used browser, EU made a decision that forced MS to include default browser select option (including Chrome).
Why did the deal this as an anti-competitive/monopoly act?

03) bing usage is almost nothing compared to Google search. Why MS forced to put an oftion to use competitive searches (even on not so popular WP), while they have their propriatory search service?

04) Why did Google filed a complain about the deal between MS and Nokia, which let Nokia to create only WP devices. You know, google owns almost 70% of smartphone OS.

Monopoly means far more complicated than what you think, my dear friend.

My point is.. ARM doesn't have a monopoly, because the basic design is heterogeneous.
Qualcomm and Apple, while producing "ARM based" chips, actually have nothing to do with ARM per se.
They are developing chips independently..to the point of complete freedom in design without needing any external license. ARM has absolutely no benefit or use from this.

Its like designing an innovative engine block and then leave it to the will of others whether they will pay a fee to use , or develop something on their own, taking the same basic idea.
Or making a recipe for a drink, and then licensing it.
But everyone is free to make a "coke" of their own..it will still be coke-based, but that's all.
The original inventor doesn't have any benefit from it.
Why is this so hard to understand?

"Do some homework.
Snapdragon, Swift(Apple), Huawei's "
KV" series of chips are all ARM based..but their design is so heavily tweaked and customized that they aren't an ARM licensed chips anymore.
Look it up!"

"There's just no comparison.. ARM is a small, open design creator with ridiculously small profits considering the market impact they have. "

All content (phone reviews, news, specs, info), design and layouts are Copyright 2001-2015 phoneArena.com. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part or in any form or medium without written permission is prohibited! Privacy . Terms of use . Cookies . Team